Putting aside pragmatic arguments in favor of deliberate parenthood (reduced crime, more stable families, and higher average education and earnings) there are a few gaps in his logic. His argument is based on the premise that if something (someone) achieves a state of potential sentience, morally, it must be legally defended. He attempts to solidfy this position through analogy by comparing an embryo and a person in a coma, each in a limbo state of potential sentience, and each therefore being defensible.

A key distinction overlooked with this comparison is that a fetus has never achieved sentience, whereas a person in a coma has reached the state of being a conscious person, and then had this state temporarily or indefinitely suspended. That the person in a coma can have this consciousness restored is essential, as the legal entity was already instantiated, whereas in the case of the fetus this was never the case. With this, his basic premise is a false equivalence and the analogy falls through, particularly when considering this as the basis for legislation.

Second, and perhaps even more convincingly, an unborn fetus, which albeit can potentially reach a state of sentience, is nevertheless dependent upon continual nurturance of a self-determining legal person. Neither a fetus, nor a fully sentient person, ever has the unequivocal right to the unconsensual use of another person’s body. The state does not, and should not, have the jurisdiction to dictate the use of a person’s body in this way. This leaves the situation firmly in favor of a pro-choice stance.